Anticipatory Bail for offences committed under GST Act

Case Details:

Issue- In the above case, the petitioner has approached the Court by way of the instant application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) seeking anticipatory bail in a matter pertaining to Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereafter referred to as the “CGST Act”) in File Number DZU/INV/A/GST/894/2021. Another Application bearing CRL. M.A. – 16552/2021 has also been filed before this Court under section 438 read with section 482 of the Code seeking ad-interim protection from coercive action that might be taken by the Respondent during the pendency of the Anticipatory Bail Application.

Held- It was held that there cannot be any conflict with the fact that petitioner has been charged with economic offence. However, it is to be reiterated that the offence does not contemplate punishment for more than five years or commission of any serious offence along with the economic offence as it is usually the case in offences under other special statutes dealing with economic offences like Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003. Thus, as per the scheme of the CGST Act, though the offence is of economic nature yet the punishment prescribed cannot be ignored to determine the heinousness of the offence. To conclude, in my view the offences under the Act are not grave to an extent where the custody of the accused can be held to be sine qua non. Since, the genesis of the statutory right to anticipatory bail can be found under article 21 of the Constitution, it is essential to understand the true import of rights under article 21 of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that such right to life does not merely mean animal like existence but includes wider connotations to make the life meaningful Custodial interrogation in the instant matter is neither warranted nor provided for by the statute. Detaining the petitioner in Judicial Custody would serve no purpose rather would adversely impact the business of the petitioner. It is without an iota of doubt that the Petitioner needs to be more cooperative in investigation, joining the same as and when required for, by the Respondent. In the present case, the Petitioner has not appeared before the Respondent department on various occasions due to two main reasons mainly i.e., due to his own ill health on some occasions while on one occasion, he failed to appear due to the ailing health of her mother. On several other occasions, the Petitioner was apprehending his arrest and thus did not submit himself before the Respondent Department. It is equally important to take note of the fact that Petitioner has placed on record several documents in the petition in order to corroborate the fact of his and his mother’s ill health the document supporting the factum of his ill health has also been supported via proper documents in the respective replies to summons.  The apprehension of arrest of the Petitioner is also not bereft of factual evidence. It was this apprehension that forced him to make a request to the authorities concerned for recording the statement in the presence of the counsel via letter dated 8th September, 2021. Also, this apprehension forced him to apply for the grant of anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court, which was refused via order dated 9th October, 2021. This court must give effect to article 21 of the Constitution in letter as well as in spirit while deciding the anticipatory bail application. The basic tenet on which our criminal justice system operates is – “innocent until proven guilty” and in view of this the Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that “bail is the rule while jail is an exception”. Such principles cannot remain a dead letter of law and this court must intervene to give effect to such principles which has been enshrined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions. This Court allows the instant application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Apprehending Authority with the terms and conditions.